ABCD classification system: a novel classification for subaxial cervical spine injuries.

STUDY

DESIGN

The classification system was derived through a retrospective analysis of 73 consecutive cases of subaxial cervical spine injury as well as thorough literature review.

OBJECTIVE

To define a new classification system for subaxial cervical spine injuries.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There exist several methods to classify subaxial cervical spine injuries but no single system has emerged as clearly superior to the others.

METHODS

On the basis of a 2-column anatomical model, the first part of the proposed classification is an anatomical description of the injury. It delivers the information whether the injury is bony, ligamentous, or a combined one. The first 4 alphabetical letters have been used for simplicity. Each column is represented by an alphabetical letter from A to D. Each letter has a radiological meaning (A = Absent injury, B = Bony lesion, C = Combined bony and ligamentous, D = Disc or ligamentous injury).The second part of the classification is represented by 3 modifiers. These are the neurological status of the patient (N), the degree of spinal canal stenosis (S), and the degree of instability (I). For simplicity, each modifier was graded in an ascending pattern of severity from zero to 2. The last part is optional and denotes which radiological examination has been used to define the injury type.

RESULTS

The new ABCD classification was applicable for all patients. The most common type was anterior ligamentous and posterior combined injury "DC" (37.9%), followed by "DD" injury in 12% of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Through this work a new classification for cervical spine injuries is proposed. The aim is to establish criteria for a common language in description of cervical injuries aiming for simplification, especially for junior residents. Each letter and each sign has a meaning to deliver the largest amount of information. Both the radiological as well as the clinical data are represented in this scheme. However, further evaluation of this classification is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.